We just finished the third worst winter in Chicago, and the cops are patting themselves on the back for lowering the crime rate.

They shouldn't pat themselves on the back yet. Even though they got a late start. A little elbow grease and good old fashion murdering and those gangbangers might still break the yearly record. it's all about work ethic.

We just finished the third worst winter in Chicago, and the cops are patting themselves on the back for lowering the crime rate.

They shouldn't pat themselves on the back yet. Even though they got a late start. A little elbow grease and good old fashion murdering and those gangbangers might still break the yearly record. it's all about work ethic.

Meh. If they had any work ethic, they wouldn't have let the cold bother them.

LazyMedia:astouffer: I'm so glad that making guns illegal in Chicago has lowered crime.

You were saying?

[cloudfront.mediamatters.org image 707x529]

IIRC, it started in '86, from the stats posted the last time this discussion came about. That chart is picking up after the initial climb made in the 90s, which changes quite a number of things when presenting information.

What the full chart shows is that there was a momentary dip, then it started to rise again, then dropped again to its present levels. This reduces the effectiveness of claiming that the ban had everything to do with the reduction, and is likely the reason why that chart is cropped. One could easily suggest that after the initial ban did not cause a massive reduction, alternative methods were put in place (like additional police enforcement/presence), that helped push it over the edge.

LazyMedia:bigsteve3OOO: Liberals. They never understand the unintended consequences of their misguided social policies.

Yeah, because before anti-poverty programs, there were NO slums filled with violent gangs.

[gamedayr.com image 640x350]

Grouping large numbers of poor people into housing (President Johnson I'm looking at you) like Cabrini- Green was a smashing success. Nothing would have been far better. And wile we are at it before Johnson there were far less gangs and slums. Dont let your bias get in the way of facts though.

DeathByGeekSquad:LazyMedia: astouffer: I'm so glad that making guns illegal in Chicago has lowered crime.

You were saying?

[cloudfront.mediamatters.org image 707x529]

IIRC, it started in '86, from the stats posted the last time this discussion came about. That chart is picking up after the initial climb made in the 90s, which changes quite a number of things when presenting information.

What the full chart shows is that there was a momentary dip, then it started to rise again, then dropped again to its present levels. This reduces the effectiveness of claiming that the ban had everything to do with the reduction, and is likely the reason why that chart is cropped. One could easily suggest that after the initial ban did not cause a massive reduction, alternative methods were put in place (like additional police enforcement/presence), that helped push it over the edge.

Oh, I'm sure the "ban" had very little to do with it; crime decreases in the '90s and 2000s happened everywhere. When you can buy guns in the suburbs, a gun ban is meaningless unless vigorously enforced. The only really effective local gun laws that affect gun violence are the sort of thing they did in Richmond, which is to use the federal mandatory 5-year sentence for carrying an illegal gun, and combining that with an aggressive effort to stop and frisk people for guns.

When guys think there's a reasonable chance of a 5-year federal stretch, they quit carrying, and a lot of "opportunity" shootings go away. Most gang shootings are sort of Bush Doctrine things, anyway. Guy kills a guy that he thinks was probably going to try to kill him. If you know the other guy's probably not carrying, you're less likely to want to shoot him.

Oh, I'm sure the "ban" had very little to do with it; crime decreases in the '90s and 2000s happened everywhere. When you can buy guns in the suburbs, a gun ban is meaningless unless vigorously enforced. The only really effective local gun laws that affect gun violence are the sort of thing they did in Richmond, which is to use the federal mandatory 5-year sentence for carrying an illegal gun, and combining that with an aggressive effort to stop and frisk people for guns.

When guys think there's a reasonable chance of a 5-year federal stretch, they quit carrying, and a lot of "opportunity" shootings go away. Most gang shootings are sort of Bush Doctrine things, anyway. Guy kills a guy that he thinks was probably going to try to kill him. If you know the other guy's probably not carrying, you're less likely to want to shoot him.

First of all, if there was a federal mandatory five year sentence for carrying illegal guns we would have to sit here three years later and hear you guys biatch is unfair because it targets minorities and then bring up how the percentage of African Americans that are incarcerated shows how racist America is.

Secondly, you should post a big sign in front window that says "I HATE GUNS AND WOULD NEVER OWN ONE".

That way, in case there's a home invasion or anything, at least you know you and your family won't be shot.

bigsteve3OOO:LazyMedia: bigsteve3OOO: Liberals. They never understand the unintended consequences of their misguided social policies.

Yeah, because before anti-poverty programs, there were NO slums filled with violent gangs.

[gamedayr.com image 640x350]

Grouping large numbers of poor people into housing (President Johnson I'm looking at you) like Cabrini- Green was a smashing success. Nothing would have been far better. And wile we are at it before Johnson there were far less gangs and slums. Dont let your bias get in the way of facts though.

Why do you think slum clearance and "urban renewal" became a thing? Because of all the slums and gangs. Certainly, they made a lot of mistakes in the mid-20th century (Cabrini Green is a good example), but it's not like there wasn't a problem. Section 8 has been a lot more successful. The reason for the big crime wave in the '60s wasn't urban renewal or welfare dependency; those weren't even really up and running when urban crime exploded. It was the demise of urban manufacturing jobs that threw millions of inner city people out of work. That was an unexpected consequence of the Interstate Highway project, as the productivity advantages of city factories were reduced by increased transportation capability in more urban areas. Prior to WWII, New York and Chicago were major manufacturing centers, right in the centers of the cities. When those jobs moved to suburban industrial parks was when the public housing that had operated successfully since the 1930s started to go south.

Everything people think they know about "welfare dependency" they got from Charles Murray. The guy who thinks black people are genetically defective. Welfare dependency isn't supported by actual research; it's just derp.

A huge one. All of the mayjeh flavas re'pesentin'. Crips, Bloods. Zeta.. The whole illiterate pack of unwashed thugs and jerks.

It'd need to be in a stadium or something. And ringed at the top with about 60 .50 cal water cooled mini guns and a metric f*ckton of ammo belts.

We know who all these jerkoffs are and were they are, so we make a reality show that goes and interviews thim with a grim sounding guy on the VO. Fail. I have very low sympathy fro criminals, yeah, why do you ask?

We just finished the third worst winter in Chicago, and the cops are patting themselves on the back for lowering the crime rate.

They shouldn't pat themselves on the back yet. Even though they got a late start. A little elbow grease and good old fashion murdering and those gangbangers might still break the yearly record. it's all about work ethic.

If there's one thing we take pride of here in the Midwest, it's our work ethic.

LazyMedia:bigsteve3OOO: LazyMedia: bigsteve3OOO: Liberals. They never understand the unintended consequences of their misguided social policies.

Yeah, because before anti-poverty programs, there were NO slums filled with violent gangs.

[gamedayr.com image 640x350]

Grouping large numbers of poor people into housing (President Johnson I'm looking at you) like Cabrini- Green was a smashing success. Nothing would have been far better. And wile we are at it before Johnson there were far less gangs and slums. Dont let your bias get in the way of facts though.

Why do you think slum clearance and "urban renewal" became a thing? Because of all the slums and gangs. Certainly, they made a lot of mistakes in the mid-20th century (Cabrini Green is a good example), but it's not like there wasn't a problem. Section 8 has been a lot more successful. The reason for the big crime wave in the '60s wasn't urban renewal or welfare dependency; those weren't even really up and running when urban crime exploded. It was the demise of urban manufacturing jobs that threw millions of inner city people out of work. That was an unexpected consequence of the Interstate Highway project, as the productivity advantages of city factories were reduced by increased transportation capability in more urban areas. Prior to WWII, New York and Chicago were major manufacturing centers, right in the centers of the cities. When those jobs moved to suburban industrial parks was when the public housing that had operated successfully since the 1930s started to go south.

Everything people think they know about "welfare dependency" they got from Charles Murray. The guy who thinks black people are genetically defective. Welfare dependency isn't supported by actual research; it's just derp.

WRONG. Public housing did not start in any great number till Johnson's great society. Yes there were a few small projects but none that would have any real effect. The fact is when the state (government) became the father (provider) the problems skyrocketed. It matches my original statement. Liberals tried to do something good : give people a place to live and some money to have some quality of life. They did it in a stupid way and the results are astoundingly bad.

Agent Nick Fury:First of all, if there was a federal mandatory five year sentence for carrying illegal guns we would have to sit here three years later and hear you guys biatch is unfair because it targets minorities and then bring up how the percentage of African Americans that are incarcerated shows how racist America is.

Uh, there is such a law, and they used it in Richmond in the '90s, before making it a statewide program. The NRA and the Brady Campaign both supported it. And it worked to radically decrease gun homicides; 33 percent in the first year of the program. Yeah, some people complain about its "unfair" effects, but not as much as you'd think, because "liberals" are a lot less sympathetic to people who get caught with guns than people who get caught with weed or nothing.

Secondly, you should post a big sign in front window that says "I HATE GUNS AND WOULD NEVER OWN ONE".

I own about 35 guns, more or less. I don't think they're good for much, for a typical middle class suburbanite like myself, except sport shooting and hunting (I don't hunt, but I kill a lot of targets). What I don't care for so much is gun fondlers who think they NEED a gun to protect them from the constant imaginary peril around them, and think it will actually solve the problem if they are unlucky enough to beat the long odds and become a victim of violent crime by a stranger.

A ghetto isn't a place. It's a way of life. Buildings are ideologically inert.

If you live like you're in a ghetto, eventually, you will be. If you donothing about the people who insist on living in a ghetto, same result.

Crime chases the above ground economy out until there's not more legitimate money moving around, and when there's no money moving around, there's no economy. Period. See banking and real estate scandals. Economies ARE wealth redeistribution but they only work when everybody gets fair value. When everything is a con or a hustle, it doesn't matter if it's top down with a briefcase or bottom up with a .38 with the serial numbers filed off. You create poverty and a ghetto.

Neiman Marcus isn't opening a store in the hood anytime soon because if you can get a 900.00 plasma screen for 75.00 from a crackhead in any given area, the de facto price for a 900.00 plasma screen in that area is 75.00. But remember, stop snitching! Cause, you know, like, criminals are like, you know, soldiers and sh*t. *snort*

The Johnson administration actually began the move toward housing vouchers, rather than public housing projects. Most of the projects later knocked down had been built by the mid-1960s. The decay of public housing in inner cities pretty much paralleled the decay in urban manufacturing. When the jobs were there, the public housing worked, the same way it works all over Europe today.

bunner:Crime chases the above ground economy out until there's not more legitimate money moving around, and when there's no money moving around, there's no economy. Period. See banking and real estate scandals. Economies ARE wealth redeistribution but they only work when everybody gets fair value. When everything is a con or a hustle, it doesn't matter if it's top down with a briefcase or bottom up with a .38 with the serial numbers filed off. You create poverty and a ghetto.

That's not how it works. Crime follows unemployment. Have a lot of jobs around, you won't have a lot of crime. Get rid of the jobs, crime pops up. Otherwise, Vegas would be a decaying slum, because that's the most ghetto-attituded place on earth.

LazyMedia:That's not how it works. Crime follows unemployment. Have a lot of jobs around, you won't have a lot of crime. Get rid of the jobs, crime pops up. Otherwise, Vegas would be a decaying slum, because that's the most ghetto-attituded place on earth.

No, that is precisely how it works and most criminals, like the ones who just stripped all of the copper plumbing out of my house while my housemat and I were at work, sre too f*cking stupid torelise that 90.00 worth of copper divided by two people for three hours work - one time - pays a lot less than a sh*tty job at McDonald's where you make money every week without risk of incarceration. Thge other criminal have briefcases and nice corporation to hife their pelf behind. It's cyclical, but chicken and egg is moot and Vegas is a lousy anaology. Crime. Creates. Poverty. It's allies or indifference and ignorance. It's not about "attitude". It's about celebrating a septic tank as "culture".

bunner:LazyMedia: That's not how it works. Crime follows unemployment. Have a lot of jobs around, you won't have a lot of crime. Get rid of the jobs, crime pops up. Otherwise, Vegas would be a decaying slum, because that's the most ghetto-attituded place on earth.

No, that is precisely how it works and most criminals, like the ones who just stripped all of the copper plumbing out of my house while my housemat and I were at work, sre too f*cking stupid torelise that 90.00 worth of copper divided by two people for three hours work - one time - pays a lot less than a sh*tty job at McDonald's where you make money every week without risk of incarceration. Thge other criminal have briefcases and nice corporation to hife their pelf behind. It's cyclical, but chicken and egg is moot and Vegas is a lousy anaology. Crime. Creates. Poverty. It's allies or indifference and ignorance. It's not about "attitude". It's about celebrating a septic tank as "culture".

Anderson's Pooper:italie: Murder is not the only crime you can commit with a gun. In fact, it's quite possible to shoot someone and have them live. I'd say that chart is more a testament to modern medicine.

Also, most gangbangers don't spend much time at the range. Accuracy is not a strong point.

I suspect that they are better at target identification than the LAPD.

A huge one. All of the mayjeh flavas re'pesentin'. Crips, Bloods. Zeta.. The whole illiterate pack of unwashed thugs and jerks.

It'd need to be in a stadium or something. And ringed at the top with about 60 .50 cal water cooled mini guns and a metric f*ckton of ammo belts.

We know who all these jerkoffs are and were they are, so we make a reality show that goes and interviews thim with a grim sounding guy on the VO. Fail. I have very low sympathy fro criminals, yeah, why do you ask?

Chicago lost the first of several court cases in 2010, after losing again in 2013, the state of Illinois started to issue the first concealed carry permits in the state this month. Prior to the new law, concealed carry was a felony statewide, though the potential for a felony charge didn't do much to deter criminals.